SACUA Study of Tenure-Track Appointments - University of
Michigan – 1990 to 2004

Jeffrey R. Lee and Charles B. Smith

In June 2005 the Office of the Provost issued its "Report of
the Committee to Consider a More Flexible Tenure Probationary Period" which
included proposals that could result in a lengthening of the tenure probationary
period. This report contained no data with respect to the current status of
tenure-track appointments at the University of Michigan. It has been claimed
that due to child-bearing and -rearing responsibilities certain faculty require
more time to acquire credentials necessary to obtain tenure. Also, it has been
suggested that requirements of some units, such as the Medical School, that
faculty receive federal grant funding in order to become tenured, necessitates a
longer tenure probationary period. The Senate Advisory Committee on University
Affairs (SACUA) has undertaken a study of data, which provides information about
the length of the current tenure probationary period as it relates to gender and
tenure-granting units.

The data used in this report were obtained from records kept
in the SACUA office (November 1989 through November 1998) and from Thomas J.
Palmer, Enterprise Resource Planning Senior Business Analyst, Records and
Information Services, in the Human Resources and Affirmative Action Office
(November 1999 through November 2004). This report covers all individuals with
tenure track positions (Instructors, Assistant, Associate and Full Professors
with hire dates after 1987 for each year from 1990-2004. They were classified by
unit and their appointments were summed within each unit. In some cases, an
individual may have held appointments in more than one department and first
reached tenure in only one of those departments. In these cases, their
classification was ranked (non-tenure, on-track and tenured) with the
individual's record listing the highest ranking for each year. Therefore if
someone was listed as tenured and on-track for a year, their single entry was
listed as tenured. Similarly, if the listing was non-tenure and on-track, they
were listed as on-track. In a few cases individuals held tenure-track
appointments in more than one unit. When they achieved tenure in any one unit
they left the on-track and were listed as tenured.

For all individuals on the tenure-track the years were
combined into one file. Four outcomes were possible: received tenure, still
on-track, left track (i.e. no longer on-track) and never on-track (i.e. always
tenured). Those who were never on the tenure track were dropped from this
analysis. The first year the individual appears as listed on the tenure track
was recorded. Those who were on-track in the first year, 1990, were checked
against 1989 records. Those who were also on-track in 1989 were dropped since we
cannot determine how long they had been on-track at the beginning of our study
period.

The findings of this study follow. The tables that contain
data have been left out of this article for space reasons but the tables and any
updates to the report can be viewed on the web page of the Senate Advisory
Committee on University Affairs (SACUA). The total number of individuals who
were on the tenure-track during the period (1990 through 2004) covered by this
study was 2700. Most of the appointments were in one unit only (2503). Results
related to specific units are based on those people with single-unit
appointments only. Of the 2503 individuals who were on the tenure-track, only 13
were on the tenure track but not tenured for more than 8 years.

Gender data for achievement of tenure. There have been
nearly twice as many men (1639) on the tenure track as there have been women
(864), but there is little difference in the percentage who have received tenure
in the two groups. The percentage of men who have left the University is
slightly greater and the percentage who remain on the tenure track is slightly
less than that of women.

Unit-related tenure data. The following data apply only
to those individuals who held tenure-track appointments in a single unit (2405).
The largest proportion of tenure-track appointees receive tenure in the Law
School and the School of Natural Resources and Environment, both of which have
small faculties. With the exception of Public Policy and Information, the lowest
proportion of tenure-track appointees who receive tenure are in Nursing,
Dentistry and Business. An appreciably greater percentage of tenure-track
faculty received tenure in the Medical School and the College of Engineering
than in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts or the Business School.

Years on-track before reaching tenure. In conformity with
the practices of most units, tenure-track faculty tend to receive tenure within
six years of entering the tenure track. In most of the units, the upper limit of
the 95% confidence interval for professors who achieved tenure, whether full- or
part-time, was less than 7 years.

Years on-track before leaving the tenure track. Finally,
the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for professors who did not
achieve tenure but left the tenure track, was quite variable among the various
units.

Conclusions:

Since 1990 very few individuals (only 13 out of 2700) have remained on the
tenure track for more than eight years.

Although, on the tenure track, women take slightly longer than men to
achieve tenure, the differences in time are quite small.

Men who leave the tenure track tend to do so slightly earlier than women,
but again the differences are slight.

Although there are appreciable differences among the units in the duration
of the tenure-track probationary period, those units in which grant funding
might be a significant factor in the decision to grant tenure (e.g. Medicine,
some departments in LS&A, and Engineering) are not characterized by
particularly long probationary periods.

In most units the upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for the
length of the tenure-track probationary period are 7 years or less; and in
only a very few units does this upper limit extend into the eighth year.

When these results were first presented at the joint meeting
of the Chapter and the Senate Assembly on December 12, 2005, members of the
Provost's office expressed skepticism about the report and its findings. Thus, a
second study was undertaken jointly with SACUA staff and members of the
University administration. While that venture is still ongoing, preliminary
results indicate that the findings of the first study were on target. While the
committee's recommendations seem well-intended, the Provost's office has no
evidence that the problems they seek to correct are either real or prevalent.
Tenure and the academic freedom it provides is the foundation of our higher
education system. While creating a more "family-friendly" system is certainly
admirable, neither the time nor the workload involved in achieving tenure should
be impacted to do so.

Note. Jeffrey R. Lee is the new Executive Director of the
Michigan Conference of the AAUP. Professor Charles B. Smith will be Chair of the
University Senate, the Senate Assembly and the Senate Advisory Committee on
University Affairs for one year as of May 1, 2006.